First and foremost, the Clinton Age of Scandal should end.
It isn't good for America and it's particularly bad for our children.

While Mrs. Clinton may not have been responsible for the President's
misbehavior with Monica Lewinsky (although she was less than honest
when blaming the affair on a "vast right-wing conspiracy"),
Mrs. Clinton's hands are not clean. Her Rose Law Firm billing
records vanished while under subpoena and then miraculously reappeared
in the White House residence when it was legally convenient. Mrs.
Clinton was implicated in Travelgate's shameful attempt to frame
a government employee for a crime he didn't commit. She was involved
in Filegate, when hundreds of FBI files on private citizens were
pored through by Clinton operatives (back in the Nixon era, Charles
Colson went to jail for mishandling just one FBI file). Her health
care operation was fined and harshly criticized by a federal judge
for brazenly violating open government laws, and perjury was likely
committed in a failed cover-up attempt in that case. And let's
not forget that Mrs. Clinton has never adequately explained how
she managed to turn a 10,000% annual profit on cattle futures,1
or that she's the nation's first presidential spouse to testify
before a grand jury about her own misbehavior.

Some Democrats may think it is more important to win a Senate
seat than to elect a candidate with good character. That's not
only untrue, but a false choice.

If Mrs. Clinton does not run, the likely Democrat Senate nominee
is Rep. Nita Lowey. Lowey probably has as much chance to win as
Hillary Clinton, if not more. Though a loyal Democrat, Lowey is
more moderate than Mrs. Clinton on welfare, crime and tax cuts,
and is more likely to appeal to needed swing voters. Lowey isn't
known for ethical failings, and she's very good on TV. Lowey represents
the New York suburbs, a critical swing area, while Mrs. Clinton,
as a carpetbagger, has no geographical constituency. Republican
voters will be unified against Mrs. Clinton as they would be against
no other Democrat. And Mrs. Lowey has not made the politically
unpopular announcement, as has Mrs. Clinton, that a Palestinian
state is "very important" and would be "in the
long-term interests of the Middle East."2

Some say that Mrs. Clinton is a stronger candidate than Mrs.
Lowey because current polls show Mrs. Clinton doing better against
possible GOP nominee Mayor Rudy Guiliani. This analysis ignores
the advantage Mrs. Clinton currently enjoys in polls because she's
well-known, and the fact that Mrs. Lowey would also be well known
by the end of a $40+ million Senate race. Polls show Lowey already
runs neck-and-neck with Guiliani in New York City. New York Democrats
enjoy a 3-2 registration edge over Republicans statewide.3

Mrs. Clinton is also thought to be an effective candidate because
a strong woman is said to appeal to women voters. Mrs. Lowey trumps
Mrs. Clinton here, as Lowey is not only a woman, but one who rose
to prominence on her own merits.

Advocates of a Hillary Clinton candidacy also assume that her
current 9-point Quinnipiac College poll lead4 over Guiliani would
last through a brutal New York campaign. It probably wouldn't.
Famous frontrunners are famous for falling fast. Just ask Geraldine
Ferraro, former Democratic vice-presidential nominee, who started
1998 with a double-digit lead for Senate,5 yet lost the primary
to Charles Schumer. Celebrity Mayor Ed Koch started the 1982 New
York gubernatorial race with a 17-point lead and still lost to
Mario Cuomo.6 Mrs. Clinton will recall that George Bush had a
90% approval rating in mid-1991 and still lost to her husband
in 1992.7

Ed Koch has said a Clinton-Guiliani race would be "so
mean it would shock the country."8 Who needs that? Yet, Mr.
Koch is probably right. A Senate race would be a referendum on
Mrs. Clinton's character and her politics, which are to the left
of her husband's. Mrs. Clinton couldn't respond to critics by
acting above the fray and skipping press conferences, as she has
for nearly five years.9

Those who promote Mrs. Clinton as the best the Democratic Party
has to offer New York in 2000 are saying either that ethics don't
matter or there aren't any Democrats more ethical than Mrs. Clinton.
Both statements are false.

Hillary Clinton isn't the first First Lady to be encouraged
to run for the Senate. Jackie Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt were
also encouraged to run.10 They chose not to trade their influence
as former First Ladies for the rough-and-tumble of electoral politics.
It's my guess that Mrs. Clinton will make the same choice. Good.